I currently use Mandrake 9.1, but I''ve had everything from Crux to FreeBSD on this box, and attempted to get Solaris going but gave up on the acpi issue.

Why do I use Mandrake? It''s just the most straightforward, simple Linux distro I''ve run across. So it''s not perfectly "tweaked", so it''s a bit bloated. It works, for the most part, and I''ll take that. Truth be told I''m not happy with any x86 operating system.

On the Windows end you get high polish, lots of software choice, easy to configure (as much as it lets you configure it) and for the most part it does just get out of the way. I like Win2K in theory quite a bit (XP''s a bloated pig), but grew disgusted with scumware and constantly being vigilante about viruses. With Windows you can never fully feel the computer is really yours.

With opensource Unix clones, you avoid all the beefs of Windows but then things start to get rough around the edges: key repeat will cutout for no apparent reason (Mandrake 8.0), USB will not work no matter how much you try (Gentoo 1.4), Mozilla will randomly stop accepting input (my current distro), X randomly flickers in and out without a clue in the world as to why (Gentoo 1.4), on and on and on. With (primarily) Linux, I''ve just come to accept that "good enough is", because I don''t have the time or energy to tinker with it anymore.

I will very likely jump ship to OSX within the year. In many ways its a great marriage of the above two (as far as my needs are concerned), and I''ve always been an Apple fan. So maybe then I''ll be a "Unix" user and proud of it

I never figured you for a Mac OS X fan, Oluseyi, though that might just be from my long absence from these forums.

Forgive me in advance for complete lack of organization.

In my humble opinion, Unix has existed longer than it technically deserves to. In many ways, it reminds me of x86 architecture in that it is very respectable in what it can do, but leaves a lot to be desired in how it actually does those things. The architecture of the typical Unix operating system is frightfully unchanged from its early days. In fact, even NT has a more "modern" kernel than the typical Unix (of course, it must be noted that I''m talking about the NT _kernel_, which has nothing to do with Windows or even Win32).

I happen to believe that the #1 problem with Unix usability is X. It has far outlived its usefulness. It gets in the way with progress. It''s architecturally ugly and unnecessarily complex (I can''t think of many people in their right mind who''d rather program with Xlib than even Win32). At one time, its design of providing infrastructure and not policy may have been a good one. But now, it''s incredibly important to provide users with a consistent interface, which require the windowing system to implement both. Otherwise, we''re stuck with the current mess of 1,000,000 different possible GUI''s.

I think that Mac OS X is the closest to "the right thing" that currently exists, though I''d rather have seen it based upon Be instead of BSD. More than perhaps anything, I think it''s about time that we see an operating system that''s more about elegance than raw performance. After all, if you want performance, nothing can beat the console. But it''s inexcusable to require uses to deal with that anymore. It''s equally inexcusable to have computers that don''t look and feel like they were made in 2003.

quote: Original post by merlin9x9
I happen to believe that the #1 problem with Unix usability is X. It has far outlived its usefulness. It gets in the way with progress. It''s architecturally ugly and unnecessarily complex (I can''t think of many people in their right mind who''d rather program with Xlib than even Win32).

Amen. I personally despise X, though I must admit that when it comes to efficiency, it is growing better. The big problem is that it is so deeply embedded that it will be very difficult for anything to ever replace it. It is far more likely that newer versions will continue to improve than seeing a complete replacement for X.

On my server, RH 8.0. Why? It's pretty simple to install, so I stick with that. Not to mention use of RPMs, plus the prospect that RedHat corp will be around for a while. On my desktop (dual booted with XP), RH 9.0. Why? Good driver support for the hardware I own, and fairly user-friendly. I can get stuff done I need to, with minimal consultation of documentation.

I used Mandrake for a while on the desktop, but the Mandrake group, some months after I got into it, mentioned bankruptcy, so I decided to jump ship to a different distribution that was perceived as more financially stable.

I did have a pain in the ass with Slackware (mostly because I was getting bad help from a friend who didn't know about it as much as he indicated on the outset; it was also my first attempted distribution). A lot of the folks who use Slackware Linux in my workplace seem to have a really haughty attitude towards people who use RedHat as well; not really sure, but it's just a turnoff from that distribution.

So I'll stick with what works for me.



MatrixCubed
http://MatrixCubed.cjb.net



[edited by - MatrixCubed on June 30, 2003 12:50:48 AM]

You know, we (or somebody else) should take a note of these common complains about Linux, to try to make sort of a database of these problems, and then try to solve them.

I''m sorry, but i don''t understand very well this problem people talk about X. When you say X usability sucks, do you include toolkits such as Gtk, Qt?

Victor.

In my earlier post I outlined major problems (IMO) with usability of most distributions of Linux (although Gentoo seems to be doing a great job fixing all those). Let me now outline architectural and philosophical issues I have with Linux. Disclaimer: I am not a Linux expert and know a lot less about its architecture then I should. I know a great deal about Win32 internals so I may say something about Linux that isn''t the case in reality. If I do, please correct me.

1. The notion that Linux developers should focus on a kernel and let others deal with higher level modules. This causes a great deal of incompatibility and generally crap software. An OS is a lot more then just kernel and the right thing to do for Linux developers is design a set of standard APIs and let others write software for them. An example is a huge amount of incampatible GUIs.
2. Function names like "fork" may have been fine forty years ago, but they are not fine today. It''s about time a new set of APIs was designed and old APIs were depricated.
3. Why does one need to compile the drivers into the kernel in order for them to work efficiently?
4. A common configuration standard (XML anyone?) must be enforced in order to ever design good config tools.
5. As already mentioned above, trash the X monstrosity.

I could probably come up with a few more, but I''m at work right now. I''ll add some more comments later.

quote: Original post by CmndrM
Amen. I personally despise X, though I must admit that when it comes to efficiency, it is growing better. The big problem is that it is so deeply embedded that it will be very difficult for anything to ever replace it. It is far more likely that newer versions will continue to improve than seeing a complete replacement for X.

Apple did a great job ditching X. Things like Apple and OSX is what the Unix world needs more of.

When X works, it''s just fine. But when things go wrong it''s often a complete nightmare.

quote: Original post by CoffeeMug
In my earlier post I outlined major problems (IMO) with usability of most distributions of Linux (although Gentoo seems to be doing a great job fixing all those). Let me now outline architectural and philosophical issues I have with Linux. Disclaimer: I am not a Linux expert and know a lot less about its architecture then I should. I know a great deal about Win32 internals so I may say something about Linux that isn't the case in reality. If I do, please correct me.

1. The notion that Linux developers should focus on a kernel and let others deal with higher level modules. This causes a great deal of incompatibility and generally crap software. An OS is a lot more then just kernel and the right thing to do for Linux developers is design a set of standard APIs and let others write software for them. An example is a huge amount of incampatible GUIs.
2. Function names like "fork" may have been fine forty years ago, but they are not fine today. It's about time a new set of APIs was designed and old APIs were depricated.
3. Why does one need to compile the drivers into the kernel in order for them to work efficiently?
4. A common configuration standard (XML anyone?) must be enforced in order to ever design good config tools.
5. As already mentioned above, trash the X monstrosity.

I could probably come up with a few more, but I'm at work right now. I'll add some more comments later.

I guess we all agree with the XML thing. And i think someone has already given a fine explanation why you need to compile drivers into the kernel (was it Null and Void? Can't remember...)

I find it funny you like Gentoo so much. I mean, i have never used it (though i'm getting very curious about it), but as far as i know it's a distro made for geeks, it's not easy.... and i thought you wanted something easy.

Victor.

[edited by - -vic- on July 1, 2003 11:17:21 AM]

Debian Linux all the way.
- Andy Oxfeld

quote: Original post by -vic-
And i think someone has already given a fine explanation why you need to compile drivers into the kernel (was it Null and Void? Can''t remember...)

I can''t find the explanation... Anyway, I am willing to bet it''s an explanation of Linux''s shortcomings that make the compilation necessary. There is no reason a modern OS should resort to compiling drivers into the kernel.

quote: Original post by -vic-
I find it funny you like Gentoo so much...

Gentoo lets me get a clean, efficient, usable system. This is something I feel I get with Windows every time I do a fresh install. Gentoo is the only distro that seems to give me this ability. If they had a nice install it would be even better, but they don''t. At least once I have everything set up my system is usable, unlike other Linux distros.